Travis gave a good answer on this:
"Only if in using the freedom in question you cause harm to or remove freedom from another person. So while you are free to drink, you are not free to then drive your car into someone. While you are free to own a gun (for now, if the government gets their way) you are not allowed to shoot someone with it because they pissed you off. While you are free to say anything you like, saying false things about someone can damage their reputation and prevent them from doing business, thus we have libel and slander laws.
"It should all come down to one simple question: Did the action in question cause measurable damage to the victim?"
Welcome Travis. We hope you come out of lurking more often.
You seem to be headed in the right direction with your answer. The trouble is that even if you or I were king of the world and had a responsibility to write the criteria for the restriction of freedom, it still would be misinterpreted by future generations, no matter how clear and accurate the presentation was.
The reason is that it takes a certain degree of soul contact to obtain a sense of the true principle of freedom. Therefore, the best we can do as teachers is to present the principle as clear as word can be, and attempt to inspire others to throw the principle of freedom across the soul, so the desire for maximum freedom of spirit will burn in the hearts of the sons and daughters of this little planet.
The greatest temptation placed before us humans to assist the Dark Brothers is to get caught in the illusion that "to accomplish good, we must participate in an evil to remove freedom, for the trade off seems good".
This was what happened with communism. They had a great goal - equality and abundance for all, but they made the mistake of seeking this goal by forcibly removing the freedoms of the people. As a result, in the end (in the USSR for example), they had neither equality or abundance.
Remember our discussions about the Beast in the beginning of our list? Some wondered why we spent so much time on that subject, but it is extremely important to understand that the Beast represents a strong authority figure that we either give our freedoms to or takes them from us "for our own good".
The only freedoms that should be restricted are actions that take away more freedom or rights of the group or individuals than is added.
We restrict the freedom of the thief to rob others because this action takes away more freedom than it adds.
Overall we may define the principle of freedom as follows:
"Those actions and laws lie within the principle of Freedom that bring greater freedom for and amplify the power of DECISION making for the group and individual.
"The actions and laws that lie outside the Principle of Freedom are those that bring less freedom for and diminish the power of DECISION making for the group and individual.
"To take away freedom so that good may come is illusion and the foundation of great evil.
"To allow freedom so that evil and harm is possible is the path of light, for in the end the illusion of evil is dispelled, and the power to BECOME is amplified."
The decision between the two paths is not a decision between blissful love and demonic madness. If that were all it is, then all would choose the path of light. Instead, many are deceived into a dangerous heading toward the dark path because they believe they are choosing love.
It is a great temptation for seemingly loving people to support the taking away of freedom so that good may come. Such decisions lessen the power of decision, and as the power of decision is diminished, the illusion is amplified. As the illusion is amplified, the possibility of choosing the unthinkable becomes real.
In our last post we gave five examples of possible distortions of freedom. Try and apply the principle of freedom to discover the true course to take to solve these problems.
Copyright 1999 by J.J. Dewey, All Rights Reserved